Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers' salaries


"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:737q33tn18gamdd63t7cvgklv32at14ob6@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sat, 5 May 2007 11:27:48 -0500, "Carl" <cengman7@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

I know. I've lived in Europe. Just because someone else does it is not a
compelling argument to me.

Even without subsidies, I think that people who feel a need to express
themselves artistically will do so. Not only is the world population
increasing (creating more artists), but technology is giving people more
ways to express themselves. Digital cameras, camcorders, photoshop,
internet radio, etc. With the internet everyone has access to a lot of it
too. The internet also provids a means for some artists to make money from
their art too.

I don't see a shortage of artists in this country.

But that's in part due to the fact that the government /does/
subsidize artists through grants, academic appointments, and other
support.

I'm not wild about that, because I don't think that the government and
academia are necessarily the best judge of art, but it's better than
nothing.

------
I think there would be plenty of art if the government stayed out of it.
------


I'm not arguing against artists, nor am I diminishing the value of art.

I look at taxes differently than most here though. Taxes are something
that
we empower the government to *compell* others to pay. It's a seizure of
their property/work. For some things it's necssary and benefits everyone.
Paying for a court system, roads, national defense, a social safety net,
etc.

Using the power of government to compel someone else to pay for one group
of
people to not have to work the same way everyone else does...that's a
different thing.

Why "someone else"? Taxes are paid by most everyone.

--
In a wildly disproportionate way... which allows those who pay little to
consider
it inconsequential to increase the taxes paid by others.

Even if I would not have to pay higher taxes, I am repulsed by the idea
of forcing someone else to pay more. I don't care how much they make.

If I require someone to pay for something for me that isn't absolutely
necessary,
it is a ***failure on my part*** to live up to my obligations not to be a
burden
to others. I would find that extremely offensive behavior on my part.


In matters of taxes I ask myself some basic questions:

1) Is it something that government has to do? This is a very different
question than is it something that should be done.

Why? Are you suggesting that we shouldn't do things that /should/ be
done?

----
No, I'm suggesting that the government doesn't have to be the one
to do everything. I should also say that it makes a difference to me
whether it's done at a state or federal level. If it's somehting that
should be done and the government is the best place to do it, then
I ask if it something that the federal govt has to do, or can states
do it (possibly better)?

The question isn't meant as a condemnation of government, but
a review of where the best place for something to be done is.

----
The government didn't /have/ to support the Apollo program. The
government doesn't even /have/ to support cancer research or the
school system. These are simply endeavors that the group thinks should
be done.

---
I have no problem with those expenses. There are some things that
a federal govt can do better. That doesn't mean that it does everything
better, or that I think every good thing must be done by government.

BTW, it is my understanding that the Dems have propsed a $.5 Billion
dollar reduction in the NASA budget. I haven't read their reasoning
so I make no judgement on this yet; I pass it on only as information
to those that might not have heard.
---

2) Is it fair to everyone? This includes the people whose money/work
you're seizing.

Why would it not be? They receive benefits from the government, as do
we all do.

---
No. There are quite a few targeted programs that you or I would not
qualify for... and other programs that are not even close to being
distributed equally.

In this case we were talking about giving artists a specific extra benefit
because some don't like their day jobs and would prefer to do their art.

I'm starting to sound harsher than I really feel...please put it down to
fatigue.
---


3) Does someone else have more right to my money than I do in order to pay
for something they want?

The answers to the first two questions often shape my answer to this.

4) Can I justify using force to make others pay for something I want?

To me this is the absolutely the hardest question to answer yes to.

Contrary to some, I don't consider how much money someone has as being
important to
answering that question. You can always rationalize how to spend someone
else's money.

If you're willing to seize someone's money in this way, you should be
willing to justify seizing
every taxpayer's assets for it.

Virtually every civilized society of which I'm aware has taxed wealth,
in part because there wasn't really a choice, in part because they
have believed, with Theodore Roosevelt, that "The man of great wealth
owes a peculiar obligation to the state."

---

Lovely rhetoric, but that obligation should not be considered infinite, and
everyone has their own ideas on how to spend money.

The list above are the questions that I ask myself when I consider
government spending.
I'm not arguing against taxes. I'm arguing that I think that using the
power of government to seize assets should be done sparingly and for
specific programs that are only best done by government. It should not be
the first thought of every politician because they want to bring home the
bacon to their districts, or just because a program can be done by the
government.

People always think someone else can pay. People I know have lost homes
because of tax increases. Homes that they could afford before the tax
hikes. A friend that I work with is selling his home...the home that he
grew up in and that he's lived in for 35 years... that he bought from his
mother for a fair price that he could afford. He can't afford it any more
and is moving next weekend. He didn't lose his job. He has a full time
job. He just can't afford the constant increase in taxes (in his case
property taxes first).

If I have to choose between someone keeping their home and someone else
having to keep their day job, I can do that without too much difficulty.

Here in MN, rich (as defined by the highest tax bracket) is defined as an
individual income of 67K, or a household income of
104K.

With a 2.9 billion dollar surplus before the Dems took control in the state,
the Dems propose the following:

1) Raising ALL income tax brackets, the highest being to 9%
2) Changing the property tax mechanism to be income based, so if two
people have identical homes and properties, the one that makes more,
pays more.

This is essentially creating a third income tax.

3) Raising income taxes (in the top 5 of the country) to buy down property
taxes (4th lowest in the country)
This is simply a redistribution scheme.

4) Raising the gas tax 10-12 cents.
6) Raising the sales tax to 7%
7) Creating a paint tax (WTF?) to be paid by people people improving
and keeping up their homes.
9) Raising another sales tax to pay for a stadium that the voters turned
down twice.
They changed the law so no voters were necessary to decide on a new
stadium.
10) A series of new user fees (Marriage license increases, liquor taxes,
service taxes, etc.)
These I have no problem with because they are fair, the
beneficiary pays for them.

So far the Dems propose 19 new taxes. These are not alternate plans... the
Dems want them all... and this with a significant
surplus and almost 50% of the state budget going to education and had a 47%
inrease (tax adjusted) over the last 10 years and a one time 1 billion
dollar grant..

At what point is someone's good idea NOT a sufficent excuse to seize assets?

-----

In some cases the answer to all of these is yes. Then we might get to
quibbling about how much money, but that's fine. Someone else will always
want more, others want to pay less. Hopefully you can come to some middle
ground. In some cases the answer to some may be a bit fuzzy, but no rule
or
set of standards should be completely rigid. However, the limits should be
well defined up front so that the exception is not used as cause to expand
to a larger scope.

Is it justified to make everyone pay because one group of people isn't as
enriched by their day job and (no matter how wonderful an artist they may
be) for some reason isn't able to make a living doing something they would
rather do? Where does this stop? What if I decided that what I really
want
to do is teach martial arts for a living but I find I couldn't support my
family on the pay cut? Where does it stop?

We subsidize artists because we believe that art enriches society. At
its best, it's a noble occupation, like teaching or doctoring or the
ministry.

----------

And yet we don't subsidize every noble profession. Exactly when
did society vote to say that artists are more noble and deserving
than everyone else?

Let's have a vote today to see who wants to be taxed so that artists
don't have to have a day job. Want to bet how that vote comes out?

There's a shortage of doctors, I don't see a shortage of artists, nor do
I think there would be one if we didn't subsidize them. People have been
creating art since the first drawings on cave walls. It doesn't require
forcing someone to pay for it.
----------

Carl


"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and
business
is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrence to private
initiative which are imposed by our present tax system, and this
administration
pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in
personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in
1963."
-- President John F. Kennedy


"Every time that we try to lift a problem from our own shoulders, and shift
that problem to the hands of the government, to the same extent we are
sacrificing
the liberties of our people." -- John F. Kennedy










.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Obamas Remarks on Retirement Security
    ... pensions, health care, greedy CEO's, and all the rest? ... the government or some general thing about we care for them. ... Who is going to pay ... Taxes on ALL income. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Whats the Difference Between Republicans and Puppies?
    ... Increased spending, ... bigger, more intrusive government, and the wholesale destruction of the ... Hm...pay for war, ... Well, unless the taxes are on the rich, the government programs are ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: "Oh Sunni! Oh, Shiite! Lets fight the Jews."
    ... This clearly asserts that "government employees" and "taxpayers" are two different subsets of the population. ... Government workers only appear to pay taxes as the result of an accounting fiction. ... If I receive a salary of $30k and pay $10k in taxes, it's like getting $20k tax free. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.fandom)
  • Re: why everyone wishes it would stop but no one can stop it.
    ... Government has an important role to play in a free society. ... I stopped when it was implied that the tax we pay to states is the same as ... The way it uses my taxes can be ineffecient. ... the high cost of real estate trickles down to high cost for any service that ...
    (soc.religion.quaker)
  • Re: OT: a proposal for increasing teachers salaries
    ... The internet also provids a means for some artists to make money from ... But that's in part due to the fact that the government /does/ ... we empower the government to *compell* others to pay. ... I don't consider how much money someone has as being ...
    (rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated)
Loading